moonslav59

We shoulda kept Newcomb and watched him do great in the pen.

I guess using the word "bet" was going over the line.

If he signs for $125M/5, then there's a 6th year option for $25M and a $20M buyout. (Essentially making it a $25M x 6 deal of a $29M x 5 year deal.)

While our offense is better with Duran and maybe Anthony DH'ing- and it won't be Abreu & Rafaela- I keep coming back to the idea that Duran is worth way more to another team as an OF'er than to us as a DH. (Hell, Masa might end up with a higher OPS in 2026, but of course way less SBs.) It's not technically a bad idea benching, demoting or trading Masa and paying 75-85% of his deal, so Duran DHs, it makes more sense, to me, to trade him to a team desperate for an OF'er and whether it takes a third team or whatever, we get back a 3Bman, 2Bman or a #2SP'er. The improvement we make at one of those slots should far exceed the differential between Duran at DH and Masa/Casas/Romy/Campbell at DH for 2026. Sign one guy and trade for another. That gets us to top 3-4 status, in my mind.

I think he gets $28M+ x 5. If we go to 4 years, it will be $30M+.

That cut in scouting was puzzling to me. I'm glad they put intense focus on pitching, and how these guys turn out will be a reflection of how much we improved the player development aspect of building a top foundation of young players. It's a little too early to judge that aspect, and I'm not sure how much spending has to do with it, as much as just getting the right people in the right places at the right times.

We never expected Newcomb to make the opening day roster in 2025, but I expect non of these guys will.

They dumped his salary and promised to spend to replace him. It wasn't all about salary, for sure, but it sure changed the narrative on spending. The Lester and mookie issues were horrible for Sox fans, and that was a marked change, but we had also lost Manny, Damon, Pedro, Beltre, and many others along the way. Look at all the stars the Astros have lost in just 8 years or so. Hell, even the Braves lost Freeman and some other big stars. The Yanks couldn't keep Soto. We aren't "cheap." Not even close. The whole start of the long lull in big spending actually started in 2019- the year we had our largest budget ever. We didn't bring back of replace Kimbrel or Kelly from the ring team. We've always spent more than most team. We've cycled up and down, often. We've let many really good players go, often at the right time- often not. We've added high-priced players and peaked with that in 2018. AWe went through the longest lower (not low) cycle under JH in new spending from about 2019 to the end of 2024. There were a couple blips of upspending, but withing the context of the major cuts from 2019-2020, it was barely noticeable. We spent big on Devers- bigger than anyone before. We started extending our young talent, so we won't see them boly in peak prime. We made the bold trade for Crochet and then extended him to the end of his prime years. We even started signing pitchers to 2 year deals! (LOL) These are all facts. They are not apologies or constructed defenses. The other facts that matter are that several teams have significantly jumped their spending- some leaving us in the dust. To me, the beef some posters have is that JH has not kept pace, despite our "higher revenue streams." That point has merit, but I don't get why facts are twisted to try and make JH into some kind of miser. Try looking at the Reds. Not many people are bitching at the Astros, because they spent the same or less than us, but they won more since 2018. IMO, some are masking their being spoiled with being "tough" and calling out those who point out facts as being some sort of namby pamby enablers of Mr. Miser Henry. Of course we all wish we'd do what is needed to get us over the top. At times, it seemed like we didn't need all that much to do it, and it sucked when we sat on our hands. What made it worse was the lies and pretenses conveyed by management, such as the "full throttle" statement. Obviously some sort of scam was going on, at some level. I called it a sham and got hell from a guy who has been bashing management for as long as I can remember. I may be in a minority, but I've seen a significant change in philosophy and planning, and much of it looks good to great, to me. I'm not going to ignore all that because we missed out on overpaying for Alonso or Schwarber. I'm also not ignoring the fact that we avoid large and long deals for players over 29 or 30. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, especially when you look at out team's record on those deals.

Yup. He hit 9 bombs for SEA, and while Lowe did not do poorly, Naylor might have carried us. What also hurt was the $21M on Buehler and then the D May flop.

That was real bad. Brez went over by $1.5M, last year. Why not go over by 19.5?

Well, Suarez would not help the infield defense.

Exactly how I see it, and I think we can do this without going over the second tax line. I know some hate hearing that, but it's the reality, IMO.

it might quiet the masses until the next do-nothing deadline.

I guess the Anthony and Crochet money is all a hoax.

Tough talk gets us nowhere and fast. We can beat the spend more money mantra drum 24/7 and loudly. If it never becomes reality, whoopie... we can run around saying we are not wimps. That sure would make me feel a lot better! NOT! I'm not buying the argument that looking 5-10 years down the road is counterproductive or wrong. Of course, it should not be the only part of any plan, and recognizing when the time is ripe to pounce on the hear and now is important to winning rings from time to time while trying to maintain a steady flow of winning teams for the fans- the customers. The winning ways of the Sox from 2004 to 2018 often involved step backs in spending and or refocusing on the future at the expense of the now. We were still able to put competitive teams on the field in between ring seasons until the Ben era, but then the all out DD era gave us a taste of "what could be," and some read that to mean (or hoped it meant) "this is how we will be forever and ever." It wasn't and never was going to be. That's the reality for fans that are wimps, tough guys and everyone in between. It's who we are. It's not going to change, except for maybe a splurge here and there.

There are many ways to build a very good or "better" team. I'd be fine with a SP2. I doubt we add two key pieces, but I don't think it would be all that hard. We could sign a shorter term contract FA like Suarez or Bassitt and trade for the other piece like Lodolo or KMart/Donovan or even Vientos. We can't do KMarte & Suarez without going over the second line, but something like Suarez and then Duran for Lodolo would keep us under the second line. Rafaela for Lodolo works better on BTV and keeps our offense better. Crochet, Gray, Lodolo, Bello, Oviedo, Sandoval Chapman, Whitlock, Slaten, Weissert, Harrison, Crawford, Hicks, Moran 1. L Anthony CF 2. R Contreras 1B/C 3. L Duran LF 4. R Suarez 3B 5. L Abreu RF 6. R Story SS 7. L Casas 1B/DH or Narvaez C 8. R Romy DH/ L Yoshida DH 9. L Mayer 2B/ R Romy 2B I'd really like this team, and we'd be under line 2. (No long term deals.)

There is nothing wrong with improving upon a strength area, like our rotation, especially if you don't view Bello as a great playoff caliber #3 SP'er, but am from the school of thought that it is better to improve the team by addressing your weakest links by trying to bring them to the norm or better. To me, our #1 weak area is the lack of a big bat, hopefully with power and the ability to hit LHPs well. We also need a 3Bman (2B, if we play Mayer at 3B.) We could try to fill both needs with one guy. Once could argue Bregman & Bichette don't give us the power we need, but either would net a big plus over what we have now. (It might just keep us even with 2025, but hopefully Contreras and better pitching makes up for other losses.)

Harrison.

Yes. Eventually their salary will be higher than their AAV or Tax Line number. The tax dollars hold no more weight than actual year to year salary numbers to some, but to me, it represents a choice to spend more money for now and going forward. I, for one, am thrilled we are locking up our best young players and lessening the chance they bolt to free agency in mid prime. Sure, we may get one of these extensions wrong, but I like the new direction in this area. Utah is right, too, as what good does it all do, if you end up playing it halfway and won't go that extra step to get us over the top, like maybe no bold moves at the last deadline.

The bell may Tolle Early, this season.

There was a marked change from 2024 to 2025. I admitted much was undone by the Devers dump, and pointing out the lack of deadline moves was something I neglected to mention. So far, this winter, we have not been "aggressive" financially, despite all the extensions kicking in and adding some salary via trades for Gray & Contreras. I agree on that.

You made some great points, but I have to disagree on this. Just because the nearly $50M spent on new pitchers ($21M/1 for Buehler) and $18M/2 for Sandoval, $11M/1 Chapman + $2M/1 for Wilson) did not all work out very well, we were aggressive. When you factor in the highly aggressive trade and extension to Crochet, it's hard to think we were being meek & mild on pitching. The Devers extension kicked in in 2024, and dumping his salary sure fits your comment on not being agressive as that was a move backwards, despite taking on the Hicks contract (add him and the Chapman extension to the 2025 pitching ledger- mid season.) However, spending $40M on Bregman, which blows away the Sox record FA AAV and topped the Devers AAV can hardly be considered nonaggressive. On top of his deal, we extended Anthony and Campbell on the heels of the Bello/Rafaela ones from the previous season. We are being aggressive, but just in different ways. We haven't signed a mega large and long deal since Price. The JD, Story and Masa FA signings have been our largest. That's a big change and could be viewed as being passive. I get that. Maybe spending $20M more in 2025 than 2024 is not "aggressive" enough, but it is a significant uptick. The end of year budget was almost $23M more than 2024. Only 6 teams had a higher AAV line than we did in 2025, and while that reflects sme future spending more than current, I thought that was a good thing. One of biggest gripes has been losing our young stars to a free agency and not extending them. We just locked up Crochet, Anthony, Rafaela, Bello & Campbell. That's a hge swing in philosophy and a bit of a gamble. Dare we call it "aggressive?"

I think KC is going to be more than fine.

Casas/Romy/Narvaez would be the immediate replacements, assuming an OF'er is traded.

I do wonder if one domino falls, they all follow quickly. Bregman or Bichette, then the other and Suarez and maybe a trade or two (KMarte? Donovan? Vientos?)